Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→world-religion.org citation spam: Now blacklisted on meta
Line 910: Line 910:


[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

== http://spam.themall.co.uk ==

{{spamlink|themall.co.uk}}

;Spammers
*{{vandal|Anuadeola}}

Has some remnant links, not sure whether we should get rid of them. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:22, 12 September 2007

Shortcut


Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

http://www.firsteditionpoints.com http://www.pprize.com

Fairly low-key campaign, some uses might be OK, but users behave like spammers. I cleaned these up, please monitor.

Accounts

Also:

Has been discussed with Tklein27, COI for sure, haven't looked into usage and I haven't cleaned up.

Thanks. Katr67 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has contacted me on my talk page asking me to remove his/her username from this list. I encouraged him/her to come here and discuss it. If someone could take a look at the above and comment, it would help. I'm not a spam expert, I just report what I see. (And I'm fairly conservative about reporting). Thanks. Katr67 15:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a suggestion to the editor. As a remark, spam is not about the quality or the origin of the link, it is about the way it is added, and that is why reports appear here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk,

Thank you for your constructive comments. That helps. So is it okay if I add a link in the Talk section when I'm trying to point out that the photo or information about the physical book is wrong? Also, could someone please explain why putting an IMDB link into a movie article is not spam, while putting a link that explains details about a book is?

tklein27 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also. What is the procedure to get the caption changed on a photo that is wrong?

tklein27 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to change a caption to say that it was (for example) a paperback reprint rather than a first edition, someone just changes it back. What am I doing wrong?

tklein27 17:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tklein27. It is indeed good to discuss the individual cases on the talkpages, though if you have to do that for more pages, it is probably better to contact a WikiProject. Ask them for their opinion, and create a list of what you would like to see added on a subpage of your userpage (e.g. User:tklein27/Sandbox, and see what they say about that. If the link is really good, it is probably best a template is created, with the help of the wikiproject, and then that can be used to link. If someone then asks questions, the template will be linked to a wikiproject, and questions can be asked there.
The imdb has been endorsed as a good resource, still, if someone would come and add 100 imdb links to pages, he might very well end up being reported here as well, or just being blocked if no discussion takes place there. General, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. If the page linked to contains information that can be used as a reference, then that should always be the first choice (see also our external links guideline. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dirk,

That clears things up. So if the problem is with my behavior, and not with the content of the sites, does anyone have an objection with me changing the heading of this discussion to “TKLEIN27 is behaving like a spammer”? I want to make it clear to all that my behavior is being called into question and not the content of the sites. Any objections?

tklein27 18:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there may be pages linking directly to this discussion, so it is better not to change that. And I may hope people read the whole discussion (and the first sentence is already clear enough). --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bestmootcourtprograms.com

Adsense pub-6408601581129020
Article Best Moot Court Programs Twice deleted

Accounts

Jimdugan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.204.73.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
75.18.68.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This situation was brought up at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Article_Moot_court_and_user_talk_discussion, after some investigation, there appears to be a pattern. Perhaps this is the appropriate forum for discussion.--Hu12 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Moot court is the only thing I know about. It certainly beats the kneejerk edits that have been going on so far in the moot court article. I have no problem with bestmootcourtprograms.com being deleted for whatever reason. I do care that the "whatever reason" is applied consistently within the moot court article. For example, one person deleted bestmootcourtprograms.com mentioning something about it being an advertiser. At the same time, however, he left an external link to a moot court competition, which no doubt charges a fee to competition participants. When I brought the discrepency in application of so-called standards, he deleted it. But he has still left numerous references to moot court competitions under the "see also" section of the "moot court" article. If advertisers must be deleted, then these references must be deleted (given the probability that these articles document competitions charging a fee).

If the inquiry turns on whether or not the advertiser is notable, I give kudos to the deleter who is backing out since the topic is not of interest. Those in the moot court world know that, for better or worse, bestmootcourtprograms.com is notable - in a "moot court" world that rarely sees anything notable. The site simply adds up top finishes at large moot court competitions. (Competition A has 24 teams competing. Team 62 wins Competition A. Because Team 62 has beat out 23 teams to win Competition A, its program (its law school) receives 23 points. This information is posted beneath each program's rank so that programs can double-check each other's rank. The competition name is also listed. The programs can go to the competition's web site, or contact the competition administrator, to verify the top finishes at that competition. There is absolutely no profit incentive for posting this info, but bestmootcourtprograms.com does it anyway. I can attest to the fact that the site administrator has received not a single penny of compensation from any program (or anyone at all) - quite unlike the moot court competitions currently touted in the "moot court" article.

The web site administrator has posted the methodology. He is uniquely situated to defend it. Though he won Regional Best Brief at the American Bar Association's National Appellate Advocacy Competition, he does not count best brief awards. Though his alma mater (Chicago-Kent) currently boasts the top advocate at the mega-competition Pace Environmental, he does not include best advocate awards. Though he finished Final Four out of 176 teams at ABA NAAC, he does not make top finishes at mega-competitions dispositive of program rank.

This is the first ever ranking of American law schools in the moot court world. Two law schools have already cited to their rank. Bestmootcourtprograms.com was cited as a footnote authority in the UC Hastings article (by someone other than Jimdugan). Because the first ever ranking only incorporates top finishes at competitions with 24 or more teams, programs will think twice about sending teams to smaller competitions. Thus, it is a change-the-game type of "advertiser." Not only should it be added to the "moot court" article in the main. It should be protected so it can't be deleted by every administrator who admittedly has not interest, or every moot court program director who is upset that the program is not ranked higher.

I'm happy this is going through the proper channels. Jimdugan 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, under external links (or whatever) of the moot court article, there is a reference to a First Amendment moot court competition. Nearly all moot court competitions charge fees. Why is this allowed to remain while bestmootcourtprograms.com, which (for no fee) adds up finishes (winner/finalist/semifinalists) across large moot court competitions, has been systematically deleted by the powers that be.

However, not a single one of us should delete the First Amendment MCC unless he/she is also prepared to delete every article referenced under the "see also" section of the "moot court" article. Each of these is a moot court competition (or proxy therefor, i.e. alumni association thereof), and nearly all moot court competitions charge fees. From what I've learned of wikipedia's deletion practices of articles such as "best moot court programs," articles regarding moot court competitions should be likewise deleted.

I understand now that the proper place for referencing the notable bestmootcourtprograms.com may be under external links (moot court article) under the link name "Best Moot Court Programs (United States". People no doubt want to check out how American law schools stack up when facing each other. However, under see also and external links, all referenced to moot court competitions should be deleted. The articles should be as well.

However, if these competition articles are not deleted because someone decides they are consistent with wikipedia's preference for notability and prohibition of advertising, then that decisions-maker should think very seriously about reinstating "best moot court programs" as an article as well.Jimdugan 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review "What about ...". --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks = it doesn't speak to my allegations that the "moot court" article is being "run" by those with a eurocentric view of moot court. Also, I'm beginning to see that wikipedia runs the risk of having those with a firm grasp on wikipedia rules -- and with only a cursory understanding of the topic -- beat-out topical experts who possess only the desire to correct a skewed article, and have no interest in editing their way to "wikipedia administrator" status.Jimdugan 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, you were reported here because you were pushing your link, similar as two IPs. I understand that you are not happy with the current status of the articles, but here is not the place to discuss that. Here we discuss why your link additions might not be appropriate. The argument that the articles now contain links which are not appropriate is not an argument that allows you to add (push?) your link.
If you strongly believe that the article as such is not neutral at this moment, then I would suggest that you discuss on the talkpages (I see you already do that), and maybe consider filing a case on the conflict of interest noticeboard (for conflicts of interest), or here, if other people are similarly adding/pushing links which are questionable under the spam guideline or the external links guideline). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
whether my link is appropriate = Okay. On this particular page, I'll try to limit my arguments to whether or not my link is appropriate. I don't need bestmootcourtprograms.com to be an article. I do think it is appropriate as an external link. Someone reading about moot court would like to know more about how American moot court programs stack up against one another. They click on "Best Moot Court Programs (United States)" and are taken to bestmootcourtprograms.com. I don't mind continuously adding this link. Currently, however, I seem to have the status of a spammer on wikipedia. I would like a decision to be made about whether or not I am a spammer. If the decision-maker decides in my favor, though, I would like not to again be added to the spam list (and have to face this ordeal anew) by every moot court director who is upset that they don't rank in the top five at bestmootcourtprograms.com. There are probably hundreds of American moot court programs. Currently, about 60 have performed well enough this year to be ranked on my site. That means that every two-bit moot court program director will be able to report me as spam - that is, unless wikipedia makes a decision in my favor and prevents others from designating me "spammer."Jimdugan 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you appear to be an expert in the field, and you apparently feel that Wikipedia (just as a side remark, it is not the American wikipedia, though that does not exclude that sections address certain countries) does not cover the subject appropriately, then it is better to incorporate that information in the wikipedia. When then certain information can be referenced on the site, adding that site as a reference will not be a problem. As to adding it as an external link, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. External links are subject to our external links guideline, and I have the feeling that this link may fail these criteria. Hope this explains, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aaa.si.edu

Username indicates conflict of interest. There may be other spammers. However this link can also be used as a legitimate ref/EL, such as the one I added, rather sloppily, at John B. Yeon.

Accounts

Aaa intern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Katr67 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the user stop, and to join this discussion. More information here (should we move this into an own page somewhere, it keeps getting archived, even if it is still a point of discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he won't be Joining for 24 hours. I blocked him. Seems this is WP:SPA spam acount.--Hu12 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why this user got blocked so fast, when other librarians and archivists haven't been blocked at all--is it because of the obvious COI? Katr67 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
116 links, 77 today alone. This is an encyclopedia, not a link farm--Hu12 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree about the link farm thing, don't worry. I guess this one has been a bit more prolific than the others referenced in previous discussions. Katr67 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is true (I don't know because I have not reviewed the links), it does not take any more time to suggest the link on an article's talk page than to add it directly to the article itself. Editors with a conflict of interest are not required to avoid Wikipedia completely, simply to work within the confines of our guidelines. -- Satori Son 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this situation with some bemusement (especially as Wikipedia is supposedly the encyclopedia that "anybody can edit" and encourages editors to "be bold!"). I looked through some of the links and frankly, it seems that they improved the articles (as other editors have already noted). So if this user had chosen some user name other than "aaa intern" these edits would have been perfectly acceptable? I'm also a bit bothered by the apparently failure of several editors to adhere to such Wikipedia principles as Wikipedia:Assume good faith and particularly Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. MrDarwin 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. MrDarwin 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope User:Satori Son has reviewed the links by now - many were worthwhile edits, and they probably should be restored. Modernist 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of all IP's reg. to Smithsonian that have edited on wikipedia.

160.111.254.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.134.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.60.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.110.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.84.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.111.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.112.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.6.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.254.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.146.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.80.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.21.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, I agree this should have its own page somewhere. Should it be a subpage of this one or ??? Let me know what you think it should be called and I'll set it up and notify anybody who might be interested (like the library wikiproject though they are awfully quiet right now). Thanks. Katr67 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you've started a draft. Excellent. My offer to notify people still stands, once we decide where to put this. Katr67 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's 24-hour block was changed to an indefinte block. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this user should be unblocked. A look at several links shows that they are links to Smithsonian Institution archive material on the specific artists who are the subjects of the articles. The content is relevant. This is simply is not spam by any reasonable definition. One might as well try to claim that a Wikipedian who inserts links to other Wikipedia article is spamming on behalf of Wikipedia. The inserted links provide relevant material from the Smithsonian Institution archives about the article's subject; they do not market or promote the Smithsonian Institution as an entity. WP:COI does not prohibit a party from inserting information that an independent user would consider clearly appropriate. I would recommend unblocking this user. I think an indef block completely inappropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the user. If I am further overridden I will not act again on this matter, but believe that WP:SPAM simply hasn't been met since the material is not promotional in nature, is specific, relevant, and useful to the articles it was added to. I also believe that this material would be accepted by a non-interested editor if added by an ordinary user, hence WP:COI does not require interfering. I will ask the user to voluntarily refrain from adding links to the Smithsonian Institution for the time being and discuss the issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM has been met, in the header, this is clear "wide-scale external link spamming", and "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." (and here, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm). Furthermore, the account appears to have a conflict of interest. These archivists do have a conflict of interest if they are only linking to their site. I have tried to explain earlier, it is unclear if this is improving the encyclopedia (link additions IMHO seldomly do, why this link, and not all the other libraries and musea and archives as well, are they all allowed to add their links as well?) or (bad faith warning) that it is to tunnel people to your site (even if it is a non-commercial organisation, they still need money, and a measure for efficiency is how many visitors your page has; or for musea, even how many visitors you get into your building). If the information is relevant, then it costs just as much time to make a post to the talkpage and discuss (as per all the relevant policies and guideline). Again, in this case as well, many of these links can be used as a reference (maybe except for pure picture links .. but even those sometimes), I believe libraries, musea and archives are doing a great disservice to their link if they just add them to external links sections. Please add content, and just avoid the suggestion of (coi) spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that WP:AGF is particularly important here and it's especially important to distinguish editors who have potentially valuable material to add from those whose material is clearly valueless. I'm not sure any of our purposes are entirely free-from self-interest, and like the city that has more streets than saints and has to name a few after sinners, I'm not sure we could survive if we accepted only work guaranteed free of any possibility of self-promotion. Many a Wikipedia editor has increased his or her edit count and presence in well-trafficked talk pages prior to an RfA. The edits no doubt are done partly for promotional purposes; edit-countitis is a problem and many don't help the encyclopedia, but no-one thinks such people should be blocked. I would treat additions of potentially but not particualarly useful material through normal processes, starting with discussion, and blocking people only if they refuse to participate in discussions and for that reason. As an aside, it's been a long time since I've seen a graffito with a datum about musea. It seems people aren't willing to get on the omnibus because they have some sort of stigmata about them. Cheers! Best, --Shirahadasha 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The link-removals by USer:Hu12 on this account have been reverted by user:Modernist, as discussed on WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Linkspamming_by_new_editor.3F.3F). I am not sure if this is the right answer, but apparently it is OK to add external links to your library, museum or other archive en-masse to the wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed asked the user to join the discussion. Still I totally endorse User:Hu12's total removal of all link-additions by this account and am not happy with the signals that we give by allowing accounts to perform this type of edits. As I have now said over and over, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. If you think your link if useful, add it to the talkpage and discuss first . I really would like to hear an answer to the following question: what if all musea, libraries and other archives add their external links to the external links sections. As long as the links are appropriate, would we actually allow all of them to do that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This I believe is sad. I was asked by email to not mention that one of the users involved is associated with the organization in question. I believe Katr67 recieved a similar email. As a result of this users participation, all spam was readded, project spam's efforts are a wash and I feel policy was subverted. IMHO, I belive that the account User:Aaa intern is a Role account for the purposes of conducting public relations and marketing via the encyclopedia which violates Help:Username#Sharing_accounts. I did block the account as such, however I think I was played a fool.--Hu12 06:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I received an e-mail basically harping about Hu12's actions, I guess because in the above discussion I questioned his(?) blocking the user in question so quickly, but like I told Hu12, I have no quarrel with him. Katr67 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on AN/I, but am copying it here also:

Modernist is an established editor with significant contributions to art-related articles and there is no indication he has a COI here, so he is entitled to make an editorial decision that these links have added value and should be kept. This is open to challenge as with any editorial decision. A good solution has already been found in an identical situation with User:VAwebteam (from V&A Museum), namely to set up a mini-project so that they could work with other editors to assess each proposed EL. This was very successful and they were fully co-operative. See their user and talk pages for more details. Obviously when a major institution participates in wikipedia, we don't want to chew them out. That said, we can't allow mass unsupervised insertion of links either. Careful dialogue is the way forward in such cases. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles, where an editor, Infoart, associated with the Saatchi Gallery had created over 150 articles on artists associated with that gallery. Rather than mass speedy deletes, a team of editors worked with him and attended to each article, with the final result of the addition of much useful content to the project. Tyrenius 13:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Archives of American art is an important source of valuable and valid information for visual arts articles. I actually thought there was a mixed opinion about the links with four or five editors including an administrator or two in favor of restoring the links. I acted with the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:UCS, if I restored the links too hastily - (it was a lot of work) I apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. I think the links add value and valuable information to the encyclopedia. I read a little of the history today about User:VAwebteam (from V&A Museum) and I see where these institutions have stirred issues of which I am beginning to better understand. Modernist 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently trying to write a bit of an essay on the subject of 'archivists' adding external links only (as these discussions here get archived quickly). Although the 'proof' is sometimes weak (and does not always assume good faith), I think that there are several of the policies and guidelines where these link-additions can be questioned against (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, ...), and that is why I think this should be addressed. In my opinion, the way it was solved with User:VAwebteam is the way forward (that is, revert all link additions (except when they are already used as proper references), set up a project page, and check on a case-by-case basis whether the (now proposed) link is good as a reference, should be an external link, or is even better left out at all). Another option would be, move all the added links to the talkpage, where they can be discussed.
The current version can be found here. Feel free to discuss parts on talkpages, add to the page, or to expand on my thoughts there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd endorse Tyrenius's comments above. The V&A approach has worked, as the European Library one earlier really did not, because the COI user was not prepared to do things the WP way. I'd add that modern, still in copyright, artists present special problems as it is often impossible to get the images needed onto WP because of copyright. So good external links are especially useful. Johnbod 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonhistory.org/wshs

Here's another archivist to keep track of; started and stopped spamming in June. Again, not all links to washingtonhistory.org are bad.

Accounts

Wshs315 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Katr67 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss banking spam

Sites:

All registered to the same address.

Accounts:

Could an admin delete the registered account user and/or talk pages? They appear to simply be advertising without any attempt to improve Wikipedia. Thanks.

-- SiobhanHansa 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist beckons. MER-C 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here the domains that I could find that were owned by the same person. I found these mostly by checking out AbutUs.org info. (AboutUs.org's "Related Domains" info is very useful but is based on AboutUs.org's bot's best guess in most cases, so you have to double-check ownership; I've added AboutUs.org to my spam template at User:A. B./spam).
  • Previously listed:
1. 12-steps.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
2. bankaccountsco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
3. caymanbankingservices.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
4. clickswiss.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
5. swissbanknames.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
6. swissprivatebank.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
7. taxhavenco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • Related domains:
1. africaco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
2. anonymousdebitcard.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
3. atozofwatches.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
4. billyfitz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
5. channelislandsco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
6. companyformationco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
7. companyformationsco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
8. debitcard24-7.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
9. delawareco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
10. dubai24-7.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
11. mediterraneanco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
12. merchantaccountco.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
13. offshoreexclusive.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
14. prestigeadverts.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
15. privatebankaccount.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
16. swissbankaccount.biz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
17. swissbankservices.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
18. weknowabout.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Anyone know a wealthy widow in Abuja that needs help with offshore banking?
--A. B. (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
I suggested blacklisting everything that's been spammed at meta.
--A. B. (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meta blacklist request:
--A. B. (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.swemorph.com

Accounts:

126 links total, 70 to pdfs and subpages. I'm guessing there are more accounts. --Ronz 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a coi too. --Ronz 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite coi for 80.216.158.236 who identifies himself in the link above as the founder and main contact person of the Swedish Morphological Society, as well as the author of most of the articles that have been linked. --Ronz 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all but 16 links. I think the remaining links are worth keeping. --Ronz 04:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.edistalearning.com

Users: 203.145.171.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.bradt-travelguides.com

User Zebedeezbd (talk · contribs) has entangled links to bradt-travelguides.com in the form of references to quite a few articles. The links offer no supporting information, but are an offer to sell the guide. The user was asked to explain these insertions, but blanked their user talk page and quit editing. I don't have time right now to wade through all of those articles and help would be appreciated. Burlywood 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace is clean. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slowly working my way through deleting these links (not sure what "mainspace is clean" means!). I just discovered the user has also added links to:
another site low on content, offering items for sale. Burlywood 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I thought I did a linksearch, but apparently not. Indeed there are still some articles having a link to this site (at least one that I tested used it as a reference). My mistake, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I repaired that, mainspace is now clean of bradt-travelguides.com. I removed all the references, some of which were just blatant, and many not in their place. I do not believe this is a proper source for much of the information these references were adding (a travel guide is not a good reference for saying that the tourism is providing a nice niche). All of these links were added by Zebedeezbd, there is now only one left, on Hilary Bradt, where I think it is appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also took out quite a couple of the libraries. A good example of a) too narrow linking (worldcat or ISBN would have been more appropriate, or the subjects did not comply with our external links guideline). --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

schooltree.org

Despite the .org domain, has quite a few advertisements. Most of the data presented on the site is freely available (though perhaps not as centralized). As you can see, it covers quite a few articles. I should also note that a quick survey of some of the articles found no obvious spam patterns (i.e., link seems to have been added independently by various authors). Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a particularly good link, but I don't think it's spam. If you Google for info on schools in the U.S. the schooltree.org link comes up near the top. It was used in good faith to populate lists such as List of high schools in Oregon (for which I found a better source, so I deleted the schooltree link). I think people should work to find official school and school district pages that contain the same information (from where does schooltree get its info?), but I don't think the schooltree links hurt anything either. It's similar to doing a search for sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. You often get www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which isn't affiliated with the official www.nps.gov/nr site, but has the same public domain information. The link to the dot com NRHP was added in good faith by a lot of people (some by me, because it had me fooled for a while!) and isn't terrible, but I've been going through and replacing it with the link to the official Oregon NRHP list, because it seems like the best link is the one closest to the source. Katr67 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough...I think you're right that in most cases it was added in good faith due to it's high search rank. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London spam

Sites spammed

http://spam.20thcenturylondon.org.uk

20thcenturylondon.org.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

http://spam.medievalists.net

medievalists.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

http://spam.deremilitari.org

deremilitari.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

http://spam.untoldlondon.org.uk

untoldlondon.org.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Spammers

MER-C 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of cleaning this one up, can someone take over? I'm off to get some copyvios deleted. MER-C 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two different sets of links being added.
Accounts adding these links:


These domains are registered to the Museum of London; I suggest leaving them alone:


These domains are registered to Peter Konieczny in Ajax, ON:
  • Google AdSense: 8369607704833313
  • "You will find some advertising on our pages, such as GoogleAds and Amazon.com which is needed to cover the costs of maintaining this website. We hope this will be kept to a minimum and hopefully the ads themselves will be medieval-related."
  • deremilitari.org
    • "De Re Militari is an international scholarly association established to foster and develop interest in the study of military affairs and warfare in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period."
There are COI issues here, but I'm not sure how hard we should push on these domains, given all the hundreds of truly trashy spam links we get thrown at us every day. Linkwatcher indicates some of these links have been added by high volume, respected editors. Perhaps we should toss this one to WP:COI/N to sort out.
This just highlights, once again, the need for guidance on COI and spam issues involving museums and archives.
That's just my 2 cents; others may want to take a harder line on these.
--A. B. (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.residentadvisor.net

Spam template
Sites spammed
Spammers

May have some value, but all this editor has done is spam in a similar manner to the Wikia spam incident some time ago. MER-C 11:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to alexa Paul Clement is the site owner. Our conflict of interest guideline also applies here. I deleted the template and suggested the User:Paulclement to contact an appropriate wikiproject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

albumofthemonth.com

Various users, blatantly all socks, have been adding ext links to albumofthemonth.com, a purely commerical Amazon affiliate. The links were on about 140 articles, most of which have been removed now. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

albumofthemonth.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just put shadowbot on the revert (with override!) for this link, as I got about 10 alert from COIBot from 10 different accounts adding the link to .. again 10 different pages. All reverted, blatant spam. When the list is complete, I will block all these socks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the used single purpose accounts are now blocked for sockpuppeting, the blocklog links to COIBots report. It feels a bit like this is a Joe job, actually. Any clues anyone? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  1. Links don't meet our requirements
  2. Spammer ignores our requests
  3. Spammer uses sockpuppets (also against the rules)
  4. We can't stop the spammer except by blacklisting
I say blacklist locally. If it's a Joe job, then the domain owner and his evil twin can sort this out among themselves -- it's our job to run an encyclopedia, not identify the imposter among a bunch of socks. Even if it is a Joe job, we still don't want the links. --A. B. (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, per above discussions and thoughts, re-added to Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, possible sockpuppets sorted by account creation date (UTC):
Many built small edit histories by excessively wikifying a bit of a non-music article or adding a slight bit of trivia. Likely Europe or South Asia based on the times. Sometimes added a little natural history information (see [3] and [4]). The two IPs adding these links[5][6] traceroute to Great Britain.
--A. B. (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an impressive example of very subtle sockpuppetry and obfuscation; Stu made a great catch. Even now, with careful analysis, it's possible to say a clear pattern of widespread sockpuppetry exists, but without running checkusers, it's impossible to say any one account above is a sockpuppet. For this reason, I recommend not blocking any of these users unless further misbehaviour surfaces. --13:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't know if it is related, but I decided to monitor the IP of the URL (). That resulted in the following, seconds after I added the rule to COIBot:
Any thoughts on this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The typical spammer is like most other webmasters -- he pays someone else to host his websites. Perhaps <10% of spammers host their own domains from what I can tell. Here's what http://whois.domaintools.com/albumofthemonth.com has to say about this domain's host:
"Server Data" section:
"IP Address: 213.171.192.98"
and a little further down the page (in the "DomainTools Exclusive" section):
"Reverse IP: 7,214 other sites hosted on this server."
The whois data for this IP turns up:
"213.171.192.0 - 213.171.197.255"
"FASTHOSTS-UK-NETWORK"
"UK's largest web hosting company"
"based in Gloucester, England"
Also the whois data is different for each domain:
So I think COIBot's catch is purely coincidental ... and fortuitous, since the toolsforpreschools.com link additions are inappropriate promotional links for a software company (as SiobhanHansa has very graciously and nicely informed the person adding them. --A. B. (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... now this one I had not seen before.

Ciffob is a company selling packaging material (tea bag paper, adhesive tape, etc.). An account with the same name uploaded two images (I have not deleted them yet so everyone can see them): Image:Ciffob silicagel.jpg and Image:Ciffob silica gel.jpg. The images are not linked anymore in a document (it was on Silica gel, where already a similar, non advertising image was available).

--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porn linkspammer is back

See also:

Apparently has a new set of links:

Users:

This is only K and L .. the other letters are also out there? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one doing L's turned up at WP:OP... 128.241.46.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Videmus Omnia and I have also been working on this one and have found more links; see:
See this long discussion on my user page about the patterns we've found so far:
This looks like it's going to be a very big, very difficult spam operation to figure out and stop; we're up to 215 domains so far with probably at least that many more out there to find. After many hours, I still don't even know who this guy is. --A. B. (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. We can use all the help we can get! Could someone perhaps work on the harder core (>R-rated) section? --A. B. (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified AntiSpamBot to catch all of these sites using the IP address they all resolve to. Shadow1 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Looks like I've been busy reinventing wheels. More links:
This could use its own WikiProject! --A. B. (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to further extend the number of weapons in this: the linkwatchers that we are running are currently watching all 722 wikis that are operative. COIBot is watching the output of these linkwatchers. Therefore I also build Shadow42's code resolving code into COIBot. COIBot will now resolve all IPs, and when the resolved IP is on the monitorlist, it will create a report (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports). --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a bit a look around certainly helps, and User:A. B./Sandbox16 has been expanded with quite some sites in this range. I hope that that sandbox now contains the majority, though I think the bots will now start to pick it up anyway. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'm not sure I fully understand all that you did, but it's impressive and is very, very helpful! --A. B. (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spammer was back, the bots all picked up the linkadditions properly. I have now blacklisted all links from User:A. B.'s sandbox. If he now changes the IP of the URL's he is spamming, we would like to know that ASAP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing work, and thank you very much. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love note to a spammer

I can't believe it -- spamming right up to within a minute or two of Dirk's blacklisting all the domains we've found so far.

I suspect he'll be back soon. I left him a note at the IP he used today:

We'll see if it makes any impression (if he even sees it). --A. B. (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great note! OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must note here, I was watching the output of our bots, and when the spam hit the fan, I took the prepared blacklist and copied it into the blacklist. I could have done that yesterday evening .. but we needed to know if the bots really would catch this and react properly .. let him now try to add the link to one of the 722 wikipedia the linkwatchers are watching .. we will notice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a note dropped to my Talk page about your work and what you've done so far is great. Dirk mentioned earlier that he was spamming K's and L's... how would you like to get a jump on the M's? :)

What someone should do is write a script to access each of those spam websites, then click through to the "Links" page present on each and check to see what's there. If you look at the Links page for "Leyla Milani" (put a .net on the end to form the URL), you'll see a bunch of models & actresses whose first names start with "M". E.g., martinemccutcheon dot org, marthawainwright dot org, mirandaotto dot org, etc. A check through on the Links section at kerrikasem dot net has a completely different set of URLs - jarahmariano dot org, jennigarth dot org, garcellebeauvais dot net, etc.

As well, they now seem to favor coming in through proxies, so I would see if it's possible to modify the AntiSpamBot or COIBot so that when they see someone trying to add a blocked link to automatically dump the offender's IP address to the check list at WP:WPOP. Tabercil 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casslin Data Systems, LLC spam on Wikipedia

Domain:

Related domains:


Account:


Blacklisting request:


Public registration data:

Casslin Data Systems, LLC
PO BOX 501176
San Diego, California 92150
United States
Administrative Contact:
MACADAMS, MATT
PO BOX 501176
SAN DIEGO, California 92150
United States
8887336230

--A. B. (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaopectate#Use_on_animals has a link to an external site. IMHO, this one is on the borderline between a valid link and adspam. What do those more experienced in combatting adspam think? -- 201.19.20.38 13:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.staythirstymedia.com

Account

Smyers2795 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.slidedummy.info

I removed a link from the Slide disambiguation page because it seemed like spam on that page, but the other places I found links to this site are mostly in articles, and I don't feel experienced enough to choose whether they are appropriate enough. I see it on the pagesKitchen cabinet‎ and Do it yourself --illumi 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got spammed, it can be removed:

Users:

Removed them all. Thanks for the report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent conflict of interest as well, the site is maintained by Derrick and Dane Lawless. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --CliffC 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domain:
Account:
  • I left first request to stop adding links (other accounts have been warned before)
    • Traceoutes to Baltimore, Maryland
Article:
--A. B. (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional spam domain:
Related domains:
Additional accounts:
Registered to an Owings Mills ISP
  • Employed by site-owner[7]
Articles:
Public registration data:
Irwin Kramer
500 Redland Court
Owings Mills, MD 21117
--A. B. (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All mainspace links cleaned up except those added by others and/or admissible per WP:EL: Foie gras controversy, Todd Bertuzzi, James J. Kilpatrick, Joseph C. Wilson, The Legal Television Network. --A. B. (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Alcohol problems and solutions"

There are about 350 links to this site, nearly all set up by its author. Although not blatantly commercial, he seems to have spam-linked heavily to promote his opinions. Jonathan Luckett 12:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets monitor for some time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense 2846453156922259 spammer still active

Some of these sites, as documented by A. B. are still being added:

Now add:

And users:

All cleaned as of now. Burlywood 14:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor spam campaign to list

http://spam.cellpacksolutions.com http://spam.myhometown-schools.co.uk http://spam.southshields-sanddancers.co.uk

I cleaned these up at the end of last month. Eddiec just contacted me about them, so I thought a report would be useful for discussion. --Ronz 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.thevideobeat.com/

Accounts

71.169.51.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.169.21.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.237.179.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.169.28.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.169.20.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.110.109.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.caiuszip.com and http://www.sciarthistory.com

History of personal spamlink1 and the recently created copy spamlink2 from ISP COMITE GESTOR DA INTERNET NO BRASIL.

201.53.33.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings, 2 more entries after final warning, block, 1 more entry
189.13.60.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings
201.8.194.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Warnings.
201.37.236.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings, 2 blocks
201.8.194.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 attempts
201.53.33.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 1 warning, 2 blocks
Profes001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 4 warnings, indefinite account creating block
201.53.0.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
201.53.42.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 3 warnings, 1 block

Spamlinks entered on articles Theory of relativity‎, Agatha Christie‎, Charlie Chaplin‎, Pablo Picasso‎, Cubism, Principle of relativity‎, Mass–energy equivalence‎, General relativity‎, Albert Einstein‎, Mathematics of general relativity‎, Special relativity‎, The Einstein Theory of Relativity‎, Principle of relativity‎, History of gravitational theory‎, Annus Mirabilis Papers‎.

Countless final warnings and multiple blocks, some of them indefinite. Blocking does not help.

DVdm 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spamlink templates. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35 spam links (30 + 5 respectively) on interwiki spam search. Blacklist globally? MER-C 09:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I guess that global blacklist is called for here. DVdm 11:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.myspace.com/clearvisionentertainment/

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

world-religion.org citation spam

Ad-sense pub-4015403507195401

Link claims to be a public domain version of the 1921 Canney Encyclopedia of Religion.

Conversation at my talk page and RapidReferenceWriter's talk page. -- SiobhanHansa 18:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just signing off after leaving a note on Siobhan's talk page and saw his entry here. Here's a bit more:
  • 2 more accounts:
  • 2 more domains:
Goggle Adsense ID for all three domains: 4015403507195401
I'm on an urgent trip and can't follow up -- can someone else? These should probably go to meta, given the x-wiki aspect. --A. B. (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A.B. Now reported at meta(permanent link). Are we supposed to get it blacklisted locally as well - or only if it's turned down at meta? -- SiobhanHansa 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If meta blacklists, then there's no need to here. Otherwise, if they don't, then take it to the local blacklist. In my own experience, spammers increase their x-wiki spamming over time, they don't decrease it. Herbythyme, the most active meta admin handling blacklisting issues nowadays, is very sensitive and responsive to this sort of thing once someone makes a good case as you have. (At the same time he's very chary of requests where the supporting facts haven't been laid out very thoroughly.) --A. B. (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now blacklisted on meta. --A. B. (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

startingiseasy.com

For the record - I have requested blacklisting of startingiseasy.com on meta. Large cross-wiki aspect (though only one IP). see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/84.27.107.217 and the from there linked LinkReports. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.kqed.org

Already meantioned earlier, and there are some warnings on the talkpage of the IP today:

Apparently a good link, as it contains a lot of data. But the account has been adding the link repeatedly, and has itself not responded whatsoever to any of the warnings. I gave it a {{uw-spam4im}} earlier, and an explanatory text shortly after, but that was ignored.

If this is indeed deemed to be a good link, then I suggest that the people involved in kqed work together with a wikiproeject, and that the wikiproject endorses a template. That template can then be used to add the links. As the IP in question does not seem to respond, I think further linkadditions should be treated as linkspam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Craigrosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
65.168.148.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
These were being spammed back in july, apparently its continued.--Hu12 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charliequest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
another--Hu12 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

musicemissions.com

Guess I am being punished for not following up as soon as I saw it.

One account, I guess the sock-master User:MusicemissionsSolitaryMan started with it, now there are several.

Needs cleaning up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.whatiftees.com http://spam.cafepress.com/whatiftees

whatiftees.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
cafepress.com/whatiftees: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.themall.co.uk

themall.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

Has some remnant links, not sure whether we should get rid of them. MER-C 12:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=157362948"